From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 9 19:55:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB9210656AA for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1A38FC0A for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:55:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-255-48-78.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.48.78]:63350 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KzGO2-0005bf-9B for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:55:55 +0100 Received: (qmail 52666 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2008 20:55:54 +0100 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 9 Nov 2008 20:55:54 +0100 Received: (qmail 90917 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Nov 2008 20:55:54 +0100 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:55:54 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Robert Huff Message-ID: <20081109195554.GB90867@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109152835.N49145@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20081109165314.GA89995@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <18711.12995.251454.988166@jerusalem.litteratus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18711.12995.251454.988166@jerusalem.litteratus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.48.78 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KzGO2-0005bf-9B. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KzGO2-0005bf-9B b4d7a6603c9cffacae5796cd4832383e Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 limits X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:55:57 -0000 On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:58:11PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > > Erik Trulsson writes: > > > > Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion): > > > If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32 > > > bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or > > > policy reasons, and if so what are they? > > > > It probably could be expanded to 32 bits if that was deemed > > useful. Doing that would of course require re-creating any > > existing filesystems since the on-disk format would change, which > > would be a PITA for users, but certainly possible. > > I seem to remember at least one case (3.x -> 4.0 ????) where a > major version change had no upgrade path - to get the new stuff you > had to reinstall. You are probably thinking of the 4.x -> 5.x upgrade where you pretty much had to reinstall if you wanted to switch from UFS1 to UFS2. (But you could of course keep using UFS1 if you wanted.) > But I agree there's no reason based on current evidence to do > this. > Thanks. > > > Robert Huff -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se